A major Democratic super PAC is launching a tip line for those attending former President Trump’s expected 2024 campaign launch to provide potentially damaging information.
American Bridge 21st Century announced the project a day before Trump is scheduled to announce at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that he will run for another White House term in 2024.
“American Bridge is inviting folks who want to hold Trump accountable to send us tips about anything interesting or newsworthy they see at Trump’s announcement on Tuesday,” Drew Godinich, senior communications director at the organization, said in a statement to The Hill.
Goodinch said the group expects Mar-a-Lago to be “crawling with fringe weirdos and, potentially, known right wing lunatics.”
“If you’re in South Florida and want to join American Bridge in the fight to hold Trump accountable, you should grab your phone and go down to Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday,” Goodinch added.
The group has reserved an email address — TrumpTips@americanbridge.org — for those who wish to send information about Trump’s campaign launch.
American Bridge 21st Century has positioned itself as the primary organization conducting opposition research and pushing back on potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates.
The group last month listed 21 Republicans it views as the likeliest GOP presidential contenders, including former Trump, several officials who served in his administration, and prominent senators and governors such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The organization earlier this year accused Trump of breaking campaign finance laws, citing his spending on political funds without officially launching a presidential bid. Trump has repeatedly teased the prospect of seeking another White House term dating back to when he left office in January 2021.
Last week, he officially set a date for what he billed as a major announcement from Mar-a-Lago. Jason Miller, a longtime Trump adviser, has since confirmed Trump will use the announcement to launch a 2024 bid, even as some in the party push to move on from Trump in the wake of disappointing midterm elections.
The 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup is already set to make history without the opening whistle even being blown.
This year’s soccer tournament will take place in Qatar, making it the first time it has even been held entirely in the Middle East and the second time it’s ever been held entirely in Asia. It’s also the first time the tournament will take place in November and December, moving from the late spring and early summer due to the extreme heat that plagues the region that time of the year.
It will also be the last time the tournament will have 32 nations in the tournament. In 2026, when the World Cup moves to North America, the tournament will have 48.
Qatar will open the tournament against Ecuador in the first match on Nov. 20. The game will kickoff at Al Bayt Stadium in Al Khor.
Read below for the entire group stage schedule. The group matches go from Nov. 20 to Dec. 2, with one of the biggest matches set to take place on Nov. 25 between the U.S. and England.
All times Eastern. FOX Sports holds the U.S. broadcast rights for the World Cup.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
--
A ladies football fan group gathers by the Corniche in Doha, Qatar, on Nov. 12, 2022, one week before the 2022 FIFA World Cup begins. (Simon Holmes/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Group A: Qatar vs. Ecuador (11 a.m. ET)
Group B: England vs. Iran (8 a.m. ET)
Group A: Senegal vs. Netherlands (11 a.m. ET)
Group B: U.S. vs. Wales (2 p.m. ET)
Group C: Argentina vs. Saudi Arabia (5 a.m. ET)
Group D: Denmark vs. Tunisia (8 a.m. ET)
Group C: Mexico vs. Poland (11 a.m. ET)
Group D: France vs. Australia (2 p.m. ET)
Group F: Morocco vs. Croatia (5 a.m. ET)
Group E: Germany vs. Japan (8 a.m. ET)
Group E: Spain vs. Costa Rica (11 a.m. ET)
Group F: Belgium vs. Canada (2 p.m. ET)
Group G: Switzerland vs. Cameroon (5 a.m. ET)
Group H: Uruguay vs. South Korea (8 a.m. ET)
Group H: Portugal vs. Ghana (11 a.m. ET)
Group G: Brazil vs. Serbia (2 p.m. ET)
Christian Pulisic of the United States prepares for a corner kick during a game against Saudi Arabia at Estadio Nueva Condomina on Sept. 27, 2022, in Murcia, Spain. (Brad Smith/ISI Photos/Getty Images)
Group B: Wales vs. Iran (5 a.m. ET)
Group A: Qatar vs. Senegal (8 a.m. ET)
Group A: Netherlands vs. Ecuador (11 a.m. ET)
Group B: England vs. U.S. (2 p.m. ET)
Group D: Tunisia vs. Australia (5 a.m. ET)
Group C: Poland vs. Saudi Arabia (8 a.m. ET)
Group C: Argentina vs. Mexico (11 a.m. ET)
Group D: France vs. Denmark (2 p.m. ET)
Group E: Japan vs. Costa Rica (5 a.m. ET)
Group F: Belgium vs. Morocco (8 a.m. ET)
Group F: Croatia vs. Canada (11 a.m. ET)
Group E: Spain vs. Germany (2 p.m. ET)
Group G: Cameroon vs. Serbia (10 a.m. ET)
Group H: South Korea vs. Ghana (10 a.m. ET)
Group G: Brazil vs. Switzerland (2 p.m. ET)
Group H: Portugal vs. Uruguay (2 p.m. ET)
Group A: Netherlands vs. Qatar (10 a.m. ET)
Group A: Ecuador vs. Senegal (10 a.m. ET)
Group B: Wales vs. England (2 p.m. ET)
Group B: Iran vs. U.S. (2 p.m. ET)
Group D: Tunisia vs. France (10 a.m. ET)
Group D: Australia vs. Denmark (10 a.m. ET)
Group C: Poland vs. Argentina (2 p.m. ET)
Group C: Saudi Arabia vs. Mexico (2 p.m. ET)
Group F: Croatia vs. Belgium (10 a.m. ET)
Group F: Canada vs. Morocco (10 a.m. ET)
Group E: Japan vs. Spain (2 p.m. ET)
Group E: Costa Rica vs. Germany (2 p.m. ET)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Neymar Junior of Brazil is shown during the international friendly match against Ghana at Stade Oceane on Sept. 23, 2022, in Le Havre, France. (ANP via Getty Images)
Group H: South Korea vs. Portugal (10 a.m. ET)
Group H: Ghana vs. Uruguay (10 a.m. ET)
Group G: Cameroon vs. Brazil (2 p.m. ET)
Group G: Serbia vs. Switzerland (2 p.m. ET)
With encouragement from both corporate foundations and the U.S. Forest Service, many “conservation groups” have adopted the collaboration model for conflict resolution. In each of these collaborations, local wilderness proponents and opponents negotiate the fate of our remaining unprotected wildlands. The general public is excluded in favor of “local stakeholders”, even though public lands “belong” equally to all Americans. I’ve written about this disastrous paradigm elsewhere, as have other wilderness advocates. This approach treats wildlands as little more than a user group pie to be divvied up for the various self interest groups rather than viewing a wildland as a fragile and endangered ecological entity that needs protection. Wildlife does not get a seat at the table.
Note that these collaborations do not represent groups with a common interest cooperating in an effort to achieve a common goal. Such traditional collaborations used to represent strength in the conservation movement. For example, back in the early 1980’s when I still lived in Wyoming, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, the Wyoming Wilderness Association, the Wyoming Outdoor Council and Earth First! plus numerous individuals cooperated in an effort that ultimately led to the passage of the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984. It wasn’t a great bill, but considering our republican congressional delegation, we did pretty well getting a million acres of Wilderness designated. The groups had their strategic differences, but the goal that everyone shared was to maximize wilderness designations. Contrast that with today’s “collaboratives” in which conservation groups deal away public wildlands to self-interest groups that are in complete opposition to basic conservation goals. Like timber companies and off-road vehicle groups, including organized anti-wilderness mountain bikers. The difference between the two “collaboration” models is night and day. Nowadays when I hear the term I cringe. Because I know that wilderness is going to get the shaft.
Here in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Gallatin Range is the only major mountain range within and adjacent to Yellowstone National Park with no designated Wilderness. A big chunk of the range is a congressionally designated Wilderness Study Area, but over the years the Forest Service chose to illegally allow off road vehicles including mountain bikes, to proliferate, despite a legal mandate to preserve the area’s wilderness character. In other words, the agency allowed local anti-wilderness constituencies to proliferate; once the door was opened to them, the off road vehicle people felt that they had an established right. And the Forest Service didn’t want to make the hard decision to kick them out and re-establish wilderness character as required by law. Instead, the agency initiated a collaboration process designed to force local citizens to resolve the conflict, or put another way, to do the agency’s job. This pitted citizen versus citizen, exacerbating community polarity.
The “Gallatin Forest Partnership” (GFP) collaboration was initiated by the Forest Service, and enthusiastically embraced by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Wild Montana (formerly the Montana Wilderness Association) and The Wilderness Society, groups that have long been happy to deal away roadless areas to satisfy self-interest groups including mountain bikers, dirt bikers, all-terrain vehicle riders (ATV’ers) and snowmobilers. In other collaborations, loggers and oil companies join the feast. That’s how these collaborations are usually organized, by user group, rather than by environmental considerations such as water quality or wildlife habitat. In other words, roadless area ecosystems are treated as little more than a user group pie, with wilderness being what’s left over after all of the self-interests get their chunk. Some of the results are worse than others. But more often than not, these collaborations usually end up proposing “Wilderness” areas that are greatly reduced or oddly-shaped with much edge and minimal secure interior habitat. What’s particularly insidious about these collaboratives is that often, effective grass-roots groups that work for maximum wilderness protections are intentionally excluded from the process. They are simply not allowed to participate. That’s exactly what happened with the GFP.
It is important to realize that the 1964 Wilderness Act excludes “mechanized” transportation from designated wilderness. It could have used the term “motorized”, but fortunately, the Act’s primary author, Howard Zahniser, anticipated the invention of new devices for off-road travel, even though the mountain bike wasn’t invented until the early 1980’s. In my early days as a wilderness activist in Wyoming during the late 1970’s, the primary opposition to protecting roadless areas with new Wilderness designations came from timber, mining, livestock and oil interests. Today, the playing field has changed. Those extractive industries remain problematic, but throughout much of the public domain the primary opposition to new Wilderness designations comes from off road vehicle interests including the well-organized mountain biking lobby, folks who view public wildlands as little more than an outdoor gymnasium for their adrenaline-fueled sport. After all, these user groups want a piece of the pie. In addition, some mountain bike organizations even lobby to open the existing National Wilderness Preservation System to biking, including e-bikes!
Throughout the West, mountain bike groups work to either negate new Wilderness designations or to reduce them to exclude their favorite “rides”, often with the blessing of some so-called “conservation” groups. For example, the GFP proposed only about 100,000 acres of designated wilderness in the Gallatin Range, out of a 250,000 acre roadless area that lies adjacent to contiguous wilds in Yellowstone National Park. Most of the missing 150,000 acres were excluded to mollify mountain bikers and snowmobilers. Instead of wilderness, the GFP proposed alternative designations of “backcountry” and “wildlife management area” for portions of the roadless area. Under these alternatives, big chunks of the Gallatin Range Roadless Area will remain open to damaging uses including snowmobiling, dirt-biking and even logging and road-building — under the guise of “forest health” or “fuel reduction”, euphemisms designed to greenwash destructive industrial logging. Clearly, these alternative designations more resemble traditional multiple (ab)use than a protected natural landscape.
On many unprotected roadless lands under BLM management, livestock grazing has decimated native ecosystems. To support even more cattle and sheep, destructive “chainings” annually destroy thousands of acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands in order to increase livestock forage. At least some of these lands would be protected as Wilderness — in which such destructive actions would be prohibited — were it not for lobbying by mountain bikers and other off-road vehicle abusers.
By the late 1970’s, “ecology” was catching on, and some of us were beginning to relate wilderness with biodiversity, the Earth’s naturally occurring assemblages of species, subspecies and genetic variation. The old paradigm of “monumentalism” – in which conservation focused mostly on protecting ruggedly scenic landscapes – was on the wane. Sure, the alpine peaks were great, but what about the migration corridors, the low elevation winter ranges, wetlands and the river valleys that are so important for so many species, especially in the arid West? Gradually, the conservation movement began to outgrow its infatuation with monumentalism, increasing its emphasis on protecting habitats and biodiversity. In 1980 Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, our first true large-scale ecosystem-based preservation law since the 1964 Wilderness Act. And roughly during this period came the idea that wildlands – and their dependent life forms – have inherent value, a right to exist simply because they do exist.
There are many reasons to fully protect our remaining undeveloped public wildlands, primarily as designated Wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Only designated Wilderness is statutorily protected against degradation (the Wilderness Act requires agencies to “preserve wilderness character”) and only designated Wilderness must, by law, remain wild (“untrammeled”) where natural processes, rather than human interventions, prevail. Of course, wilderness promotes diverse economies, protects watersheds, maintains clean air and provides opportunities for primitive recreation, solitude and sanity in an increasingly insane world. These are all valuable services for humans. But for me, I choose to focus on the biocentric values of habitat, biodiversity and the inherent rights of wild places and organisms to remain wild, that is, to thrive and evolve as they will, without heavy-handed human manipulation. We now know so much more about the importance of wilderness and related wild landscapes in providing habitat for endangered species, wilderness-dependent species, and even for protecting the genetic diversity of local populations that populate a wildland. And no, I cannot prove that wilderness lands or wildlife have inherent or intrinsic value. But nor can I prove that Grandma has a right to exist. Lack of proof is not lack of truth.
The collaboration dynamic represents backsliding into re-emphasizing recreation over ecosystem health, since one function of the collaborations is to placate mechanized user groups. And the Forest Service and the BLM are notorious for approving nearly any mechanized use, nearly anywhere outside of designated Wilderness. So the agencies often rubber stamp the collaboratives’ watered down Wilderness proposals. It gets them off the hook and provides a low end starting point for Congress to consider for a Wilderness bill. For example, in its new Forest Plan for the Custer-Gallatin National Forest, the minimal Forest Service Wilderness proposal for the Gallatin Range is similar to that of the GFP. Both the GFP and the Forest Service proposal for the Gallatin Range excluded most of the high ecological value lower elevation wildlands, resulting in a “rock and ice” wilderness proposal. This is a typical result of many collaborations and it represents backsliding into monumentalism rather than ecosystem conservation.
Roadless wildlands in the U.S. are rapidly disappearing. About 83% of the land area of the contiguous 48 states is already within one kilometer (a little over a half mile) from a road. Only about 12% of the land area of the contiguous 48 states remains roadless and undeveloped in tracts of 5,000 acres or more, the general minimum acreage requirement for a designated Wilderness (five thousand acres is only about 8 square miles, a tract that most folks could cross on foot in an hour). And only about 2.6% of the lower 48 is designated Wilderness.
Another way to look at this is that if all qualifying federal public lands were to be designated as Wilderness, nearly 90% of the landscape would still be non-wilderness. Most of those lands are open to mountain bikes, e-bikes, four-wheelers, snow-machines, drones and just about every kind of motorized and mechanized vehicle imaginable. In fact, just on national forest and BLM lands is an existing (mostly dirt) road network of well over a half million miles! So there are ample places for humans to play with their mechanized toys, without intruding into roadless backcountry (potential wilderness) on public lands.
The destructive impacts of off road motor vehicles are well-documented. They compact the soil, spread weeds, stress wildlife and create air and noise pollution. And they drive off other users creating single use zones. But mountain biking off road, though quiet, is also problematic. Let’s face it: all backcountry users impact trails and displace wildlife to one extent or another. Even hikers. But because a mountain biker can travel at least five times the speed of a hiker or horseback rider, depending upon the terrain, the biker will displace wildlife at five times the rate, and will impact five times as much trail. Also, because of their speed, the core of large roadless areas are rendered less remote, more accessible, more crowded and therefore less wild, less special and of less value as secure habitat for sensitive wilderness-dependent species. Hike any trail with heavy mountain bike use and I certain that the area will feel less wild than designated wilderness or other non-mechanized wildlands.
And also, riders of all types of off-road travel machines tend to scar the landscape with lots of new user-created trails, because many of these people don’t obey laws that prohibit off trail riding. This includes mountain bikers.
Modern Day collaborations legitimize the view that mechanized off-road transportation is an acceptable use of public lands, even in roadless areas. They create the illusion that everyone can get a piece of the pie in a “win-win” scenario, but when the dust settles, wilderness gets the leftover scraps. Wild nature loses. The inherent value of wildness and wildlife is ignored. Those off-road vehicle users who selfishly promote their own personal interests over what’s best for the wildlands and wildlife are to blame, sure, but so are the federal agencies and the so-called conservation groups that almost invariably sell out big chunks of wild country in these collaborations. They are violating the public trust. Rather than collaborating with die hard wilderness opponents to dice up wildlands, the conservation movement should organize, educate and lobby for big wild wilderness. And demand that the Forest Service and the BLM do their job and protect the land. The political system will nearly always compromise away valuable wildlands; that is not the job of conservation groups. We need to show the world that the National Wilderness Preservation System of the United States of America is one of the best ideas that humanity has ever had. There are now eight billion humans on the planet, busily converting what’s left of wild nature into even more human biomass and the infrastructure to support it. Wild nature is on the ropes. It is time to just let it be. Let it be primitive, let it be free of humanity’s trappings; let it be wild, just because it is.
On this day in 1680, Gottfried Kirch discovered a comet, through use of a telescope. Known as Kirch’s Comet or the Great Comet of 1680, it would grow in brightness to a maximum reached in late December, and was reportedly so bright at that time it was visible in daylight. The comet also played a role in the work of Sir Isaac Newton, who used it to test and verify Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.
You may use this page to discuss comets and other astral bodies, or engage in other freewheeling, off-topic discourse. Find previous discussions in the Open Thread archive. Excepting the entreaty that you remain on topic, all of Slate’s usual commenting policies apply.
If you depend on this community and Slate’s journalism, please consider joining Slate Plus. We appreciate your support.
Uruguay, South Korea Open Group H Play With Scoreless Draw originally appeared on NBC Sports Boston
Another day, another scoreless draw in Qatar.
Uruguay and South Korea ended their Group H opener with a final score of 0-0, marking the fourth such contest so far at the 2022 World Cup. Both sides had chances to break the stalemate, but nobody was able to get a goal across.
Uruguay’s opportunities were especially close. Diego Godín and Federico Valverde both hit the post, with Godín’s shot coming on a first-half header and Valverde drilling an 89th-minute rocket with his right foot.
South Korea was in position to steal three points a couple of times during the match. Hwang Ui-Jo missed a point blank chance in the 34th minute and Son Heung-Min went wide of the net in the 90th minute.
Uruguay and South Korea each come away with a point in Group H with the result.
Next up for Uruguay is a highly anticipated contest against Portugal on Monday, while South Korea will battle Ghana.
“Let the people go!” an activist group is telling Starbucks after the coffee chain’s boss threatened to close down its bathrooms.
The American Restroom Association is marking World Toilet Day on 19 November, an awareness-raising day started by the United Nations to celebrate toilets and advocate for proper sanitation systems, by calling on Starbucks to keep its restrooms open to the public.
In June, the Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, specifically mentioned the Starbucks bathroom situation while speaking at a conference.
“We serve 100m at Starbucks, and there is an issue of just safety in our stores in terms of people coming in and using our stores as a public bathroom,” he said. While Schultz did not specify what problems the business has been having with its open-restroom policy, Schultz said the company has to “harden our stores and provide safety for our people”.
“I don’t think we can keep our bathrooms open,” he said.
The stance is different from the one the chain has had since 2018, when it told employees that all patrons, paying customers or not, would be allowed to use the restroom in stores.
The announcement came after two Black men were arrested at a Starbucks in Philadelphia – an encounter that was filmed and went viral. One man asked to use the restroom, and an employee informed him that he needed to purchase something to stay at the store and use the facilities. Moments later, police arrived and arrested them, seemingly without any clear reason.
In a memo to employees in 2018, Starbucks said that the open-restroom policy “is intended to help maintain the third-place environment in alignment with our mission”, referring to the sociological concept of a “third place” – a place of community that is neither the home nor a workplace.
In a statement to the Guardian, a Starbucks spokesperson said: “No changes to our bathroom policy have been made. Our local leaders have a number of options at their disposal to support our Third Place Policy, which includes the ability to modify store operations and restroom access, following local jurisdiction laws where applicable.”
While Starbucks has not officially changed its bathroom policy after Schultz’s comments, the American Restroom Association (ARA), which advocates for safe and well-designed public restrooms, notes that some Starbucks locations have closed their restrooms to the public.
Steve Soifer, the group’s president, pointed out that international plumbing codes require business establishments to keep their toilet facilities open to both visitors and customers – essentially anyone walking into their business. Such plumbing codes exist around the country, but enforcement can be non-existent.
Still, Soifer argues that Americans have few other options.
“The problem is there aren’t any other choices,” Soifer said. “You go to New York City, for example, and you’re walking around. The only places you can go are public libraries or museums. They have to keep the bathrooms open for the public. Everything else is hit-or-miss.
“Try to find city-built public toilets in New York City, they’re virtually non-existent.”
Part of the problem, Soifer said, is that there is no official count of how many government-operated public restrooms are in the US. One study, conducted by the British bathroom supply company QS Supplies, estimates that there are eight public toilets for every 100,000 Americans, ranking below the UK, France and Canada. In comparison, Iceland, which has the highest number, has 56 public toilets for 100,000 people. Soifer said the ARA was trying to get funding to create a “national toilet map” for the US which will show all public restrooms in the country.
Pay-to-use toilets, more commonly seen across Europe, were once prolific in the US. People protested that Americans should not have to pay to use public facilities, but instead of building free-to-use restrooms, the restrooms shut down entirely in the 70s with nothing to fill the gaps.
“We thought by eliminating pay toilets, cities and counties would invest in building public toilets, and that just never happened. Now we have no options,” Soifer said. “There’s such a dearth of public toilets in the US for people to use.”
Some progressive local governments have made efforts to construct public toilets. Soifer pointed to Portland’s “Portland Loo” initiative, where the city constructed free-standing restrooms around the city. Other cities have started to take on the concept, including San Diego and Sacramento.
But building more restrooms can be costly and politically difficult for local governments. The California governor, Gavin Newsom, criticized plans to build public restrooms in San Francisco’s Noe Valley neighborhood. The toilets would cost $1.7m and take up to three years to build. The ensuing anger over the plan was nicknamed “Toiletgate”.
Because businesses like Starbucks already have functioning facilities, the immediate solution is allowing access to the public with broader hopes that people can push governments to build clean and accessible municipally funded restrooms.
“This is such a widely felt issue,” Soifer said. “I mean, everyone I talk to has a public toilet horror story.”
EQS-Ad-hoc: IMMOFINANZ AG / Key word(s): Miscellaneous
IMMOFINANZ AG: IMMOFINANZ starts negotiations with CPI Property Group to increase its shareholding in S IMMO to over 50%
21-Nov-2022 / 10:19 CET/CEST
Disclosure of an inside information acc. to Article 17 MAR of the Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, transmitted by EQS News - a service of EQS Group AG.
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
IMMOFINANZ starts negotiations with CPI Property Group to increase its shareholding in S IMMO to over 50%
IMMOFINANZ AG (IMMOFINANZ) has today received an approval from its Supervisory Board to enter into negotiations with its core shareholder CPI Property Group (CPIPG) concerning the acquisition of shares in S IMMO AG (S IMMO). Currently, IMMOFINANZ directly holds approx. 26.49% of S IMMO. CPIPG directly holds 52.7% of S IMMO, which may further increase as a result of CPIPGs mandatory takeover offer over S IMMO.
A potential acquisition of shares in S IMMO by IMMOFINANZ from CPIPG would be envisaged to take place by the end of this year (2022). The potential transaction would involve at least 17,305,012 shares in S IMMO (approx. 23.51%) to form a controlling stake in S IMMO within IMMOFINANZ and would take place at a fair market price to be negotiated and confirmed by an independent fairness opinion. The purchase price may take into consideration the EPRA NAV/NTA of S IMMO, share price, a control premium as well as targeted synergies among other relevant market standard price parameters. For the purchase price, a long-term financing by CPIPG to IMMOFINANZ should take place.
With this acquisition, IMMOFINANZ would complete a long-term strategic goal and proceed with the consolidation of both companies to capture future mutual synergies.
On IMMOFINANZ
IMMOFINANZ is a commercial real estate group whose activities are focused on the office and retail segments of eight core markets in Europe: Austria, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and the Adriatic region. The core business covers the management and development of properties, whereby the STOP SHOP (retail), VIVO! (retail) and myhive (office) brands represent strong focal points that stand for quality and service. The real estate portfolio has a value of approximately EUR 5.4 billion and covers more than 220 properties. IMMOFINANZ is listed on the stock exchanges in Vienna (leading ATX index) and Warsaw. Further information under: https://www.immofinanz.com
For additional information contact:
Bettina Schragl
Head of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations
T +43 (0)1 88 090 2290
M +43 (0)699 1685 7290
communications@immofinanz.com
investor@immofinanz.com
1100 Vienna, Wienerbergstraße 9, Austria21-Nov-2022 CET/CEST News transmitted by EQS Group AG. www.eqs.com
Group had previously rejected claims that the stake sale would require clearance from tax authorities
Mumbai | Published 13.11.22, 01:54 AM
|The Adani group on Friday announced a revised timeline for its proposed open offer to acquire a 26 per cent public shareholding in NDTV, the news broadcaster said in a regulatory filing with the stock exchanges.
According to the filing, the Adani open offer is now proposed to open for subscription on November 22 and will close on December 5.
The previous timeline for the open offer by Adani was October 17 to November 1.
In August, Gautam Adaniled entities had acquired a lesser known company called Vishvapradhan Commercial Pvt Ltd (VCPL), which had lent over Rs 400 crore to NDTV founders.
VPCL had lent the amount more than a decade ago in exchange for warrants that allowed it to acquire a stake of 29.18 per cent in NDTV at any time.
VCPL with AMG Media Networks and Adani Enterprises have proposed to acquire an additional 26 per cent or 1.67 crore equity shares at an offer price of Rs 294 per share.
NDTV promoters had contested the open offer and the acquisition of VCPL stake, asserting that the deal cannot go ahead without Sebi’s nod as well as that of the income tax department.
The Adani group had previously rejected claims that the stake sale would require clearance from tax authorities.
The promoters of NDTV had claimed that they were completely unaware of the takeover and it was done without their consent.
After the transaction, the acquirer (Adanis) will not directly hold any equity shares of the target company (NDTV) but shall own at least 99.50 per cent and up to 100 per cent of the paid-up share capital of the promoter company (RRPR Holdings).
Meanwhile, NDTV and its subsidiary, NDTV Networks Ltd, are putting on hold the proposed sale of their stake constituting 20 per cent of the total share capital of Astro Awani Network Sdn Bhd, a media company in Malaysia.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has withheld for now its approval of the transaction vide its letter dated November 9.
DUBLIN, Calif., Nov. 7, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- TriNet Group, Inc. (NYSE: TNET) ("TriNet" or the "Company") announced today that it has commenced a modified "Dutch auction" tender offer (the "Tender Offer") to purchase for cash up to $250 million in value of its common stock (the "Common Stock") at a price per share not less than $63.00 and not greater than $72.00, less any applicable withholding taxes and without interest, using available cash on hand. On November 4, 2022, the closing price of the Common Stock was $61.75 per share. The Tender Offer will expire at 12 midnight, New York City time, at the end of the day on December 6, 2022, unless extended or terminated.
Assuming that the conditions to the Tender Offer are satisfied or waived and the Tender Offer is fully subscribed, if the purchase price per share is $63.00, the Company would purchase 3,968,253 shares and if the purchase price per share is $72.00, the Company would purchase 3,472,222 shares, representing approximately 6.4% and 5.6%, respectively, of the Company's outstanding Common Stock as of November 3, 2022. If shares having an aggregate purchase price of more than $250 million are tendered in the tender offer and not properly withdrawn, the Company reserves the right to accept for purchase pursuant to the tender offer up to an additional 2% of its outstanding shares without extending the expiration date. The Company also expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to purchase additional shares or to change the per share purchase price range subject to applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Any shares tendered may be withdrawn prior to expiration of the Tender Offer. Stockholders that do not wish to participate in the Tender Offer do not need to take any action.
A modified "Dutch auction" tender offer allows stockholders to indicate how many shares of Common Stock and at what price within the range described above they wish to tender their shares. Based on the number of shares tendered and the prices specified by the tendering stockholders, the Company will determine the lowest per-share price that will enable it to acquire up to $250 million in value of Common Stock. All shares accepted in the Tender Offer will be purchased at the same price even if tendered at a lower price.
To tender shares of Common Stock, stockholders must follow the instructions described in the "Offer to Purchase" and the "Letter of Transmittal" that the Company is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). These documents contain important information about the terms and conditions of the Tender Offer.
The Tender Offer will not be contingent upon any minimum number of shares being tendered or any financing conditions. The Tender Offer will, however, be subject to other conditions, which are disclosed in the Offer to Purchase. The Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") believes the modified "Dutch auction" tender offer is a mechanism that affords all stockholders with the opportunity to tender all or a portion of their shares, and also affords stockholders the option not to participate and, thereby, to increase their relative percentage interest in the Company. In addition, our Board believes the Tender Offer provides stockholders with an opportunity to obtain liquidity with respect to all or a portion of their shares, with less potential disruption to the share price and the usual transaction costs inherent in open market purchases and sales.
The Board has authorized the Tender Offer. However, none of the Company, the Board, the dealer managers, the information agent, the depositary or any of their respective affiliates are making any recommendation to stockholders as to whether to tender or refrain from tendering their shares in the Tender Offer or as to the price at which stockholders may choose to tender their shares. No person is authorized to make any such recommendation. Stockholders must decide how many shares they will tender, if any, and the price within the stated range at which they will offer their shares for purchase. In doing so, stockholders should carefully read the information in, or incorporated by reference in, the Offer to Purchase and the Letter of Transmittal (as they may be amended or supplemented), including the purposes and effects of the Tender Offer. Stockholders are urged to discuss their decisions with their own tax advisors, financial advisors and/or brokers.
BofA Securities, Inc. and Truist Securities, Inc. are acting as dealer managers for the Tender Offer. The information agent for the Tender Offer is D.F. King & Co., Inc., and the depositary is Computershare Trust Company, N.A.. The Offer to Purchase, the Letter of Transmittal and related documents will be mailed to registered holders. Beneficial holders will receive the Offer to Purchase and a communication from their bank, broker or custodian. For questions and information, please call the information agent toll-free at (888) 542-7446.
Certain Information Regarding the Tender OfferThe information in this press release describing the Tender Offer is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to buy or the solicitation of an offer to sell shares of Common Stock in the Tender Offer. The Tender Offer is being made only pursuant to the Offer to Purchase and the related materials that the Company is filing with the SEC, and will distribute to its stockholders, as they may be amended or supplemented. Stockholders should read the Offer to Purchase and related materials carefully and in their entirety because they contain important information, including the terms and conditions of the Tender Offer. Stockholders of the Company may obtain a free copy of the Tender Offer statement on Schedule TO, the Offer to Purchase and other documents that the Company is filing with the SEC from the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. Stockholders also will be able to obtain a copy of these documents, without charge, from D.F. King & Co., Inc., the information agent for the Tender Offer, toll free at (888) 542-7446 or BofA Securities, Inc. toll free at (888) 803-9655, or Truist Securities, Inc. toll free at (855) 382-6151. Stockholders are urged to carefully read all of these materials prior to making any decision with respect to the Tender Offer. Stockholders and investors who have questions or need assistance may call D.F. King & Co., Inc.
About TriNetTriNet provides small and medium-size businesses (SMBs) with full-service HR solutions tailored by industry. To free SMBs from HR complexities, TriNet offers access to human capital expertise, benefits, risk mitigation and compliance, payroll, all enabled by industry leading technology capabilities. TriNet's suite of products also includes services and software-based solutions to help streamline workflows by connecting HR, Benefits, Employee Engagement, Payroll and Time & Attendance. From Main Street to Wall Street, TriNet empowers SMBs to focus on what matters most—growing their business and enabling their people. TriNet, incredible starts here. TriNet's Common Stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TNET."
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTSThis press release contains statements that are not historical in nature, are predictive in nature, or that depend upon or refer to future events or conditions or otherwise contain forward-looking statements, including statements concerning such things as TriNet's ability to complete the Tender Offer. Forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of words such as, but not limited to, "ability," "anticipate," "believe," "can," "continue," "could," "design," "estimate," "expect," "forecast," "guidance," "hope," "impact," "intend," "may," "outlook," "plan," "potential," "predict," "project," "seek," "should," "strategy," "target," "value," "will," "would" and similar expressions or variations intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, but are based on management's expectations as of the date hereof and assumptions that are inherently subject to uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause genuine results, performance or achievements to be materially different from our current expectations and any past or future results, performance or achievements. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements.
Further information on risks that could affect our results is included in our filings with the SEC, including under the headings "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and elsewhere in our most latest Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, which are available on our investor relations website at https://investor.trinet.com and on the SEC website at www.sec.gov. Copies of these filings are also available by contacting TriNet's Investor Relations Department at (510) 875-7201. Except as required by law, neither we nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward-looking statements in this press release, and any forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date of this press release. In addition, we do not assume any obligation, and do not intend, to update any of our forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
Media:
Renee Brotherton/Josh Gross
TriNet
Renee.Brotherton@TriNet.com
Josh.Gross@TriNet.com
(408) 646-5103 / (347) 432-8300
Investors:
Alex Bauer
TriNet
Alex.Bauer@TriNet.com
(510) 875-7201
View original content to obtain multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trinet-group-inc-commences-a-modified-dutch-auction-tender-offer-to-repurchase-up-to-250-million-of-its-common-stock-301670123.html
SOURCE TriNet